Kate Bolick has set the chattering class — not to mention the bar scene — abuzz with her cover story for The Atlantic, “All the Single Ladies.” Because she passed up marriage in her late 20s and has now concluded that at 39 the possibility has passed her by completely, she declares the end of marriage as her generation’s contribution to history. Have all single 30-somethings come to a similar conclusion? Not quite, as you might expect. For further insight, National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez discusses the issue with Jennifer A. Marshall, director of domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation and author of the book Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the 21st Century.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Is this month’s Atlantic story one woman trying to justify why she broke up with a boyfriend of three years for no good reason (as she tells it)?
JENNIFER A. MARSHALL: Not trying “to justify” but perhaps trying to figure out, in retrospect, why she did it. She confesses to having been bewildered by her decision at the time. There were some pretty strong winds at our backs for those of us growing up in the you-go-girl generation (i.e., those born after 1970), propelling us along a seemingly endless path of opportunity. So if “something was missing,” as she says, why not keep looking for it? As in any generation, cultural dynamics shaped our motivations in ways we couldn’t readily articulate, and this article strikes me as an effort to sort those out.
Advertisement
LOPEZ: At 39, is it “certainly” the case, as Bolick writes, that “falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck”?
MARSHALL: Never-married 30-somethings probably are not in a good position to use the word “certainly” in observations about how marriage will happen.
LOPEZ: “Biological parenthood in a nuclear family need not be the be-all and end-all of womanhood — and in fact it increasingly is not.” Did anyone ever say it was?
MARSHALL: That’s a feminist parody of the traditionalist position that rightly esteems marriage and motherhood. The feminist–traditionalist debate has played out popularly in a way that leaves many women still wondering how to ground their sense of identity and purpose in the midst of all the shifting terrain in the last generation. I think we need to address some questions that are more foundational than those we typically hear.
LOPEZ: “But somewhere along the way, I decided to not let my biology dictate my romantic life. If I find someone I really like being with, and if he and I decide we want a child together, and it’s too late for me to conceive naturally, I’ll consider whatever technological aid is currently available, or adopt (and if he’s not open to adoption, he’s not the kind of man I want to be with).” Is there something selfish about that? There is a reality to biology. You may be able to adopt at a later age, but is that fair to the child, who is not going to have you around as long?
MARSHALL: The problem here is taking a fundamentally relational dimension of life — romance — and approaching it individualistically. The more we focus solely on our own goals, our own timelines, the less likely we are to have the other-focused outlook that makes relationships succeed. And as the Atlantic story points out, it’s that relational piece that is so elusive for women of the you-go-girl generation, the satisfaction we struggle to find. These romantic and relational decisions have consequences beyond ourselves, often particularly for children. Part of empowering women today ought to be instilling a greater sense of stewardship for those consequences beyond ourselves.
I find it funny that the onus for a lot of this thrown back on men by both feminists and traditionalists. It ignores biology and the current legal and social landscape. Why are there "no good men"? Because the women who are asking that question are looking for something other than good men, and a lot of the good men aren't interested in what those women are selling.
Women are ultimately the gatekeepers of who gets sex. If they spend their 20's and early 30's giving it away and delaying marriage, why are men as a group supposed to ignore their spotty personal history and marry them at some point in their mid-30's, when their fertility and looks are on the wane, and their history has shown a tendency toward flighty and trampy behavior? This is like investing in a firm that has been repeatedly sanctioned for fraud. No matter how good the prospectus looks, you're investing in an entity that has a history...
Bill Bennett's "Man Up" challenge is particularly confounding. I was "manned up" at a pretty early age but found that most women b/t/w the ages of 21 and 30 (I'm 45 now) were not interested in getting married, they were interested in partying and career, and most disavowed any desire to have children. So I went along with it for a while, had enough cheap sex and booze to last me for a lifetime. In my late 20s I eventually married a woman who had a lot more character than that and who was marriage minded. Up to that point, I figured why get emotionally entangled with a woman who will likely leave you for whimsical reasons, or who says to your face they aren't interested in marriage and kids, just career and having fun? (Bolick...) Given the inclination of young women in a feminist age to party hearty, men in their peer group who haven't stumbled on a serious, marriage-minded woman have only two sane options - follow the hit it & quit it sexual strategy to get sex but not love; or drop out of the marketplace. Why throw your love away on women who don't actually want it, and who won't want it until a most of what they have to offer as a reproductive mate has faded?
I suspect that had Bolick's boyfriend somehow "manned up" and talked her into marriage at 28, she'd have left him in a few years; it's pretty common among people whose main goal is that ill-defined chimera of personal fulfillment. Of course, that is when the other half of feminist marriage dis-incentivizing, punitive divorce laws, would have kicked in. Bolick could have deserted her husband for her next fling, and thanks to no-fault divorce laws and presumptions that favor the woman, she could have made off with most of the marital assets, any kids, and a substantial claim on her ex's future earnings. Her sap of an ex- husband would have been punished twice for manning up, first with a broken heart, second in a court of law. Bolick, of course, would have been praised for being true to herself and not being shackled by anything as confining as patriarchal, traditional marriage.
Conservatives have to wake up to the reality that cultural feminism (which starts by punishing boys in elementary school, ask me about my kid's social studies text) is only part of the problem. Legal feminism that is punishing to men is another leg of it. Conservatives shouldn't buy into this garbage but it is so much a part of the culture that most of us have.
So when Bennett jumps on board and tells men that it's their fault, they need to man up and marry these unmarriageable harpies like Bolick, he is essentially telling the feminists, "I'll hold them down while you hit them."
Because women are the gatekeepers, if change is desired then it's ultimately women who have to change. If women as a group start to change, cut back on promiscuity and start looking to marriage at a younger age, men would man up. But at present, they have no incentive to try to be the catalyst for change, and in fact prevailing elite opinion and the law work directly against them. You want men to man up for you, you have to be worth the effort. Right now, for a lot of men, it isn't.
I agree with a lot of your comments, Jim_, but I have to disagree with what you believe drives these young women to constantly seek the next best thing. Men are born to lead. Period. We as a society cannot blame the girls for seeking leadership, no matter how shallow that leadership is. If men were acting like men, then these young women would recognize the leadership and gladly put away their childish behaviour. The way you describe it, you place the onus in the hands of the young women who have demonstrated that they are not up to the task, which invariably leads to the (bad) end result you clearly recognize. You even admitted that you played right along with them in your 20's. Not passing judgment, just pointing out what I believe is part of the larger problem--that men aren't acting like men. And I totally agree with you about the reasons that is so (your school reference, men being portrayed as idiots in ALL of pop culture, etc...). But, even with those cards stacked against young men, I believe young women would be more inclined to fight for and live the traditional view (marrying before their 30's, having 2 or three kids, etc...) if they knew in their hearts that they could trust a young man to simply be a MAN.
Too many young men would rather waste time with cheap sex and beer. And they, IMHO, are just as much to blame for misguided girls as anything the feminists are throwing around. The truth outshines the lies everytime. We just have to be strong enough to teach and demonstrate the truth to our sons.
As a conservative minded young woman, finding no men my own age marriageable, I married out. My Chinese immigrant husband and I are very happy. My best friend converted to Orthodox Judaism are married a Jewish boy. Young men who do not mature until their thirties may find, like young women, that serious, marriage minded partners have gone elsewhere. I was "off the market" at the ripe old age of 19. My best friend was at 17.
Neither Lopez nor Marshall show the least knowledge of mens' rights issues and why it is more reasonable for men to go their own way and avoid the financial and emotional pitfalls of marriage - as Jim so nicely explains.
From day 1, Feminists have failed to get input from men and, as a result, made a mess of things (e.g., entitlements). People like Bill Bennett are clueless and Lopez and Marshall would have known this, if they had bothered to read the critics in the manosphere. They both should be ashamed of their inadequate knowledge and lack of research of other points of view. Typical of the self-centered women of today.
jk-phd is spot on. Lopez, Marshall, and NRO consistently miss the long list of reasons why a modern, responsible man might reject today's liberal-conservative alliance to impose feminist values upon men.
To educate themelves, Lopez, Marshall, and NRO might start with the works of Warren Farrell; continue on to the works of Henderson and Young on our legal and cultural misandry; and end with Parker's "Save the Males."
I don't know exactly, but at some number of 'relationships' a woman becomes a promiscuous _______. A man can choose to ignore this for the evening, but it's not likely he's gonna propose marriage to somebody who has severed the link between love and sex. Men, under the no-fault divorce rules (and that was exactly the intent, from the get-go), have too much to lose in a divorce to marry a _____.
Some people probably should not marry but to elect not to marry for some ideological reason leaves one susceptable to a reality not realized until much later in life. When you are old and vulnerable with no spouse or children you may face the reality of illness with no one to care for you.
Many of the baby boomer generation are now facing the difficulties of caring for elderly parents. However, it makes one ponder what their fate would be like without those children. Is the state prepared to assume this role due to the fact that many of the young today will have no spouse or children to assume this role?
The reality of entitlements that are just too costly for a nation to bear is rearing its ugly head in Europe and in our country. The chance of these generous benefits and services being available when these young folks become elderly is highly unlikely. So what will be their fate?
It's patently unhelpful to try to figure out which sex is at fault. It's shocking to me that people who do this are published. You turn off nearly all of your rational readers when you don't acknowledge the obvious, that the blame is shared.
Despite modern attempts, there's no way to separate us. If women are good, men will rise to the occasion. If not the man will lower himself to match her expectations, which is what's currently going on en masse.
Notice how the practice of being tattooed spread like religion. (It didn't get big until the women got on board.)
There's a modern myth that women have ever, at any point in history, been powerless. Muslim women may be misled, but even they are far from powerless.
What would help western women the most would be to respect men again and, as the article points out, accept the possibility of a shared vision.
Yet another modern myth gives us the perception that every man is a rich banker or succesful celebrity out on the prowl for young super models. In fact most men are the ones who've been passed up by an entire society of marriageable age women who only want the rock star or billionaire. (And absolutely destroy themselves in the process.)
You've made a good point. My Dad left when I was two. It took me a while to realize that boys even had feelings. I had a terrific boyfriend who turned into a great husband. Any guy who goes to a regular job and pays the bills is a hero in my book. We have four kids, and although I'm a nurse, I could never support us the way my husband does. Women can either inspire men to do great things, or they can lead them to great harm. I'm not saying that it's never the other way around, but throughout history there are so many examples of women having a powerful influence over men for good or evil.
Why would any male in his right mind want to marry one these has been, superfisical, materialistic women? There are plenty of young attractive women from other countries that would be happy for the opportunity to marry the kind of US male that the Go-Girl generation women would turn their nose up at,
In my time (I'm about to turn 50) the rule amongst us guys was that if a woman wasn't married by 35 there was a VERY good reason and you might want to look elsewhere. If they were divorced, hey, stuff happens and it takes 2 to tango, so give her a chane at least.
I'm 35 now and no one ever told me that as a rule, but looking around and seeing who's married and who's not at my age (and older) among my social and professional circle, it's usually the case (with exceptions, of course) that there's a very good reason why the person is not married.
Most single men want to play Jack Nicholson but are stuck––indeed typecast––in the role of Jack Lemon. How does a less-than-optimal male not embrace political indifference toward either strengthening or eradicating traditional concepts of marriage?
__________
When durability is no longer an expected feature of dating, cohabitating, marrying, remarrying, what incentive can evoke him to revive and preserve the traditions he has lost? Is it wrong to recognize today’s hordes of single men with less-than-stellar incomes need additional motives to consent to marriage beyond biological desire?
__________
Advocates often tout the economic benefits of marriage as the best incentive for eligible singles to alter their status. While I lack the competence to question the statistics of experts, I can’t help but believe this particular sale’s pitch is like saying anyone who enjoys looking up at the sky ought to prefer airplanes to seagulls simply because all aircraft fly faster than marine fowl. While seagulls will never evolve into airplanes, the idea of assuming allunmarried non-alpha males will mature and become marriageable, and thereby be financially stable for their spouses, permits a range of fallacies to creep in unnoticed. Yes, marriage genuinely allows a couple to soar high in the atmosphere of economics, but when measured by the decade, any observer can tell you that today’s airplanes, seagulls, and marriages seldom stay airborne for prolonged periods.
Jim is spot on. Conserve, you make the attempt to shame men into manning up, but you're failing on one point. Men no longer lead; the state leads. Period. No woman in the United States today needs a man, but overwhelmingly they can rely on the state to play the traditional patriarchal role. And let's be real, "manning up" against the state is pure suicide. That's where you fail.
Well, I'm not trying to "shame" men. Simply stating my own observations. I'm thankful that my dad taught me not to rely on the state's lead. While I am to submit to the state's authority, that in no way means I should lay down my manhood while doing so. And I agree that women are taught today that they do not need men. It's really sad. But, it is true that men have been "feminized" for many decades now. Add to that the decay of the family, with fathers being absent from their children's lives, mothers disrespecting their husbands in front of their children instead of acting like adults--this list could be a mile long. The point is, men need to act like men despite the circumstances. The smart women will see them, and choose to throw away the feminist and state garbage.
And I'm pretty sure if you ask my wife, she would not say I'm a failure. I'm far from perfect, but my heart is in the right place, thanks to my dad's example. She didn't have the kind of loving father I was blessed to have. She certainly recognizes the difference, despite the plethora of state and feminist propaganda.
"Back in the day we had 'love affairs'. Now we have 'relationships'".
I might add, men no longer court women; they "interface".
Nothing wrong with computer dating, but dating like a computer ...
Look, this isn't complicated. Sorry to be so blunt, but Bolick is alone because she placed herself above everyone else.
And I'm sure she's miserable, at least most of the time. People who occupy the center of their own universe usually are. Why else write an entire book exploring whether you are happy, or ever can become happy, if you already are?
I'm sure she consoles herself with the thought that she's on the vanguard of a social revolution and the culture hasn't caught up to the virtue of her "singleness" and accomodated it to make her life better.
Yeah, that's it! If only people would accept my "lifestyle". What a martyr!
Truth is, she's the norm now, or close enough to it that, if she's not comfortable with "all the single ladies" out there in their cubicles with their own hopes, and their own dreams, and their own aspirations, she never will be.
As expansive as all those hopes, dreams and aspirations are, they all narrow down to herself, alone, and only tenuously connected to anyone else through whatever work or play her personal projects involve.
Have you ever heard a conversation between two single, professional, "liberated" women? You know the type, the "girlfriends" who see movies together because there's nothing else to do on a Friday night and their next vacation to Europe (with other girlfiends) is months away? And they say the talk among married people is boring; at least we're discussing real, live husbands and wives and kids whom we love, not this "interesting" cinema-bistro that just opened up - and they serve Sushi! Or that new "film" that's showing in Paris - "I'm going next month with a couple of girlfriends!" - it's ... "so ... interesting."
When you love your husband and kids, little things become big things, and there are dramas good and bad and joys and sorrows in every step, and it's all meaningful. Without anyone to love, career, travel, food, hobbies - all the big things become little things, and ultimately as unsatisfying as sleeping alone, until you're writing books to explain to yourself why it's okay.
